Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>Summary</jats:title><jats:p>Health systems worldwide are challenged in the provision of basic medical services and access to treatments for chronic conditions. Epilepsy, the most common severe chronic neurological disorder, does not receive sufficient attention despite being officially declared a public health priority by the World Health Organization. More than 80% of people with epilepsy live in middle‐ and low‐income countries (MICs and LICs, respectively), where most of the population lacks reliable access to antiseizure medications (ASMs), contributing significantly to the large epilepsy treatment gap in these regions. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Access to Treatment administered a global survey to report on the current access to ASMs worldwide. The survey was developed and distributed online through the ILAE and International Bureau of Epilepsy (IBE) secretariats to the chapter representatives. The survey was completed by one representative per country. Response rate was 73.2% (101 countries of the 138 represented in ILAE and/or IBE organizations). Availability and access of ASMs, including distribution problems and costs, reimbursement procedures, general barriers to access to care, and presence of projects targeted toward improving care access, were studied, and descriptive statistics on available responses were performed. Among the 15 first‐generation ASMs surveyed, carbamazepine was reported as the most widely available globally. At least one first‐generation ASM is widely available in most countries, but their number differs dramatically across income levels. Second‐ and third‐generation ASMs are even more limited in MICs and LICs. Additionally, average retail prices for ASMs were not significantly different across countries despite the differences in per capita income from high‐income countries to LICs. This survey provides a worrisome picture of availability and accessibility of ASMs across the world, with wide disparities according to socioeconomic status. Recommendations for direct action on improving access to care will be discussed.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>In order to more appropriately apply and understand the “epilepsy treatment gap” (ETG) concept in current health systems, revised conceptual and operational definitions of ETG are timely and necessary. This article therefore systematically reviews worldwide studies of the ETG, distinguishing high‐, middle‐, and low‐income regions, and provides recommendations for an updated International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) definition of ETG.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A systematic review of the ETG was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) standards. The search was conducted from January 1990 to July 2019, in the online databases of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. Identified abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and data independently extracted using a standard proforma. Data describing treatment gap information including both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of access to epilepsy treatment were recorded. Descriptive statistics are presented.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The treatment gap reported in the 45 distinctive populations represented 33 countries. Treatment gap definitions varied widely. The reported ETGs ranged broadly from 5.6% in Norway to 100% in parts of Tibet, Togo, and Uganda. The wide range of reported ETGs was multifactorial in origin including true differences in the availability and utilization of health care among study populations, variations in operational definitions of the epilepsy treatment gap, and methodological differences in sampling and identifying representative epilepsy cases in populations.</jats:p><jats:sec><jats:title>Significance and recommendations</jats:title><jats:p>For the ETG to be a useful metric to compare levels of unmet epilepsy care across different countries and regions, a standardized definition must be adapted, recognizing some of the limitations of the current definitions. Our proposed definition takes into account the lack of effective health care insurance, the diagnostic gap, the therapeutic gap, quality‐of‐care, and other unmet health care needs.”</jats:p></jats:sec></jats:sec>